Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2013 9:30:00 AM (view original):This is such a weird argument. Ryan is a no doubt Hall of Famer. But he isn't anywhere near the Clemens tier. He's top 30-40 all time.

You're comparing Ryan to a roid head?

And of course, there's no possible way that a guy who put up some of his best numbers (particularly his K rates) from age 40 to 44 in the late 80s and early 90s could have anything to do with steroids, right?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2013 9:30:00 AM (view original):This is such a weird argument. Ryan is a no doubt Hall of Famer. But he isn't anywhere near the Clemens tier. He's top 30-40 all time.

You're comparing Ryan to a roid head?

And of course, there's no possible way that a guy who put up some of his best numbers (particularly his K rates) from age 40 to 44 in the late 80s and early 90s could have anything to do with steroids, right?

Shoot, everybody in baseball is guilty until proven innocent, but you really think if you take away ages 40 thru 44, Ryan is not a hall of famer?

I know a lot of those numbers look similar, but the run scoring environment that Clemens pitched in from 1994 on was significantly different than the run scoring environment that Ryan faced for most of his career. Hence the huge difference in ERA+.

I'm with bad_luck on this one, I don't think Ryan really compares to Clemens at all. I wouldn't say that there is any argument for Clemens as the greatest pitcher of all time. There is no way in which I can compare him to Walter Johnson and arrive at the conclusion that Clemens is a better pitcher. But he is in the argument for second-best, at least statistically. I would tend to put Lefty Grove 2nd, but I can see Clemens in that spot...